This Was Great!
Silver Surfer live action-ish?
The CGI was amazing and to be honest, it was thoroughly enjoyable. A vast improvement on the first, so why all the hate?
Because it had potential to be so much better. Far too much improvising went on with the storyline. They mixed the issues where Dr. Doom takes Surfer's board with the Surfer's origin story which stands alone just fine.
Ultimately, though, I think most disappointment can be pinpointed to the portrayal of Galactus--one of the most beloved antagonists in comicdom--as a speechless vapor cloud. Galactus with his complex motivations, immense stature, limitless knowledge, and soul-crushing presence certainly would have been difficult to portray...but *something*, *anything* would have been better than a cosmic vapor cloud. I would've settled for a CG head (with trademark goofy crown) accompanied by Hugo Weaving's...or better yet, James Earl Jones' voice.
I agree. Whilst it certainly wasn't 'great' it should have been the first film and the first one then deleted.
They had to drag Doom up again, kill the Surfer at the end and not showing Galactus was a mistake. So what if he looks like a giant robot, he isn't and Tim Story gets to ruin it all because of his personal wish?
And Johnny Storm needs to die. Deliberately obnoxious and pathetically written to get the girl no matter what, even when she has said no.
There were also echoes of the first film in the last scene, where it all just became crap again.
To be honest, I think they made the right decision with Galactus - I can just imagine the script meeting and I can only agree - how on earth cold they have shown Galactus in his true form without it coming off as even more cheesy?
The "cloud" was ominous and large enough that you belive it could devour a world. Plus you did get the shadow of the helmet, so you should be pretty pleased, no? :)
I think the fans rag on it too much - let's be honest, it would never have pleased you guys, would it?
But I'm intrigued, how would you have depicted him?
I've got to respectfully disagree here. The Fantastic Four I've been exposed to (the 90's animation and the first 15 or so issues of the original comic) were, in fact, quite "cheesy" as most Silver Age tends to appear to our cynical, modern sensibilities. It was full of stupid/silly science, their individual powers aren't terribly interesting, and the characterization was pretty cardboard. Their interactions with other characters were sometimes exciting, but as a standalone super-group I never found them particularly compelling. More popular, better established heroes have overshadowed just about every member of FF. Plastic Man is more entertaining than Reed. Psionics are a dime a dozen; I personally find Professor Xavier vastly more interesting than Susan (although, yes, technically she can disappear and Prof X can't--but he can make you THINK you didn't see him). Hulk is much more popular than The Thing while dealing with some of the same themes. The Human Torch stands out but even Marvel must have known that with how many issues of "Strange Tales" he was featured in. The only original thing FF had going was the family dynamic. Still, the notion of family dysfunction is no longer new or edgy.
Now, it's not my intention to insult or put down the Fantastic Four. I'm just trying to convey where I'm coming from as someone who grew up in the 80's and 90's. Extrapolate my observations to today's youth and I'm guessing they could care even less for our heroes.
My point to all of this: there's two ways to go about super hero movies. One method is to faithfully re-create the tone, plot, and visual peculiarities of the comic (such as what was done with Sin City, 300, and Watchmen). This, in my opinion, is best utilized when the target audience is mainly adults and hardcore fans.
The other approach to comic book movies involves heavy adaptation in attempt to appeal to a wider audience (such as Spider-Man, X-men, and the Dark Knight). This method seems to work just fine when the fans are of all ages and the source material has managed to stand the test of time.
When these FF movies were made the studios opted for the latter method. If they truly knew their audience--if they truly understood that the older, diehard fans appreciate the Fantastic Four far more than Joe Smith next door--then they should have employed the faithful re-creation approach instead.
Quite simply, Fox neither bothered to know the source material nor the target audience and that's why these movies sucked.
As for how I would have portrayed Galactus: I'll admit that I probably wouldn't attempt to show his entire body and yes, I would probably have him partially obscured by earth's atmosphere (in shots from Earth's surface pov). However, I would have had his torso be much less amorphous than a cosmic dust cloud. I would have had definite edges and dark shadows that made his helmet apparent. In shots from space he would be clearly visible. The best 2-d example I can find on short notice is this:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8452/galactusssdjcoxfa5.jpg
And again, I would give him a very powerful resounding voice. James Earl Jones, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee...any of these would have been fantastic.